Monday, January 4, 2010

ANG SALITANG 'KATOLIKO' BA AY NAUMPISAHANG GAMITIN NOONG 14TH CENTURY LAMANG?

The Side Chapel of St. John Lateran Basilica in Rome
Rodel said...

Fr. tatanong ko lang po kung totoo po ba na ang Salitang KATOLIKO ay ginamit lang noong 1300–1350. bagaman pong kumbinsido po ako sa paliwanag ni Brod. Cenon Bibe sa blog nya kaugnay dito ay nais ko lang pong sanang humingi ng ibang paliwanag hingil sa issue na ito na halos ilang linggo ng tinatalakay sa blog ni brod. cenon. salamat po Fr.

January 3, 2010 11:34 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

Dear Rodel,

Ang salitang CATHOLIC ay hindi nag-umpisang gamitan lang nuong first part of the 14th century [1300-1350].

No, no, no.

The term EKKLESIA CATH'OLES or CATHOLIC CHURCH or UNIVERSAL CHURCH or CHURCH THROUGHOUT ay unang ginamit ni San Lucas sa original na Greek Bible ng New Testament, mas particular sa Acts 9:31.

Marami pang mga talata ng Biblia na nakasulat ang salitang Catholic. Pero hindi mo ito mamababasa sa wikang Englis o Filipino na Biblia sapagkat ang salitang Catholic ay GRIEGO o GREEK at hindi ugat na Ingles o Tagalog.

Ito ang mga talatang nagpapatunay na panahon pa ng mga Apostoles ay ginagamit na ang salitang Catholic:

LUKE 4:14 " .. Ho Galalaia kai pheme exerchatomai KATH'OLES"

LUKE 8:39 "Apelthen KATH'OLES ten polin..."

LUKE 23:5 "Anaseis ton laos didasko KATH'OLES"

ACTS 9:41 "Gnotos de egeneto KATH'OLES"

ACTS 10:32 "Hemeis oidate ho genomenon rhema KATH'OLES"

ACTS 4:18 "Kai kelasantes autos pareggeilan to KATH'OLOU..."

and the most significant is,

ACTS 9:31 "He men oun EKKLESIA KATH'OLES ..." - the Church is called "CHURCH THROUGH OUT" in greek, "EKKLESIA KATH'OLES" (KATA + HOLOS = KATHOLIKOS).

Bukod sa mga talatang iyan meron pang mga napaka lumang dokomento ang mga unang Kristiano na nagpapakita ng paggamit at pagtawag ng Catholic sa Church. Ito ang research ng sikat na Catholic Apologist na si John Salza:

The Church is called “Catholic” [From SciptureCatholic.com by John Salza]

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 177).

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, Epistle to Florentius 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

"[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen." Apostles Creed (A.D. 360).

"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; in one holy Catholic, and apostolic Church." Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 381).

"Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God." Council of Constantinople I, Canon 7 (A.D. 381).

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you." Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397).

"You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word's signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations." Augustine, To Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7,23 (A.D. 403).

"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church…Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation" Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 2:4,5 (A.D. 434).

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

January 4, 2010 6:58 PM

12 comments:

  1. maraming salamat po Fr. ngayon mas lalo ko pang napatunayan sa sarili ko na tama po si Brod Cenon at nasa Tama ako. salmat po.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Praise the Lord. You are welcome Bro. Rodel. Study more your Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. good day/night father

    have you heard of scott hahn's story of conversion?

    he just said something strange for me, he said that whenever he would go to a rectory to ask questions about the faith, every priest he would go to would not want to talk about theological stuff and that they say "the best thing you could do for the church is to be a good protestant" and "since vatican 2 we discourage that"...

    does vatican 2 discourage us to evangelize protestants?

    what's up with vatican 2 father?

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Fan of Scott Hahn,

    Yes, I am familiar with the Conversion Story of Dr. Scott Hahn and his beloved wife Kimberly. I have several copies of his book ROME SWEET HOME and graced to have about 7 or 10 of his other books. I also heard the famous tape recorded version of his conversion story: PROTESTANT MINISTER BECAME CATHOLIC.

    I remember that passage when he went to that priest and was given the sorry answer that you have mentioned above. That priest who answered that must be out of his mind and definitely not answering according to the official stand of the Catholic Church.

    Now, concerning Vatican II.

    There is nothing wrong with Vatican II. It is that priest who was wrong. That priest distorted Vatican II.

    The Second Vatican Council was called in order to better present the Catholic Faith to the modern world and to people of other faith. Not to abandon the Catholic Faith and accept heresies.

    Read the documents of Vatican II carefully and you will see that it is a modern approach to proclaim and share the faith better in our times. Not to abandon the Church and our Catholic Faith. Never.

    ReplyDelete
  5. thanks father,
    recently i read this apologetics magazine from some fathers of the society of saint paul entitled "know your faith" and inside it, it says; all humanity is the body of christ and that that is the catholic church, they also say that we convert people just so they would enjoy full membership and that anyone who leaves the church will not exactly go to hell(but it is possible)

    maybe i misinterpreted what they said, but what do you say to that father? have you read that magazine???

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Fan of Scott Hahn,

    Yes, I am familiar with that "Know Your Faith" Magazine. And, I do not recommend it at all. I suggest you read KNOW THE TRUTH I and II.

    That magazine aimed to follow the highly popular Know the Truth series but failed to maintain the element of orthodoxy of the KNOW THE TRUTH mags. It presented a theological opinion that is highly liberal and are mostly coming from theologians not so loyal to the Pope. We have to read that magazine carefully.

    The Know the Truth mags are apologetics in nature. That one is Ecumenical in perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  7. umm father, I had a chance to hear Dr. Hahn's talk about the mass as the same once and for all sacrifice, may sinabi po sya na sa misa, inaalay din po ng Panginoon ang kanyang glorified resurrected body at kasama daw po ito sa calvary na inaalay... again, maybe namisinterpret ko po yung sinabi nya, pero totoo po ba ito?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Fan of Scott Hahn,

    Well, the best person to ask about that is Dr. Scott Hahn himself. But since you are asking me I will only rely on your statement.

    Please bear in mind that the Lord Jesus only have ONE INCARNATE BODY. That Body is not tainted with sin and therefore Uncorrupted by Sin, Death and of the Tomb.

    That One Body is the Body that He offered on Calvary and that is the same Body put inside the Tomb and that is the same Body that resurrected 3 days after. And that is the same Body that He had when He ascended into Heaven and the same Body He has now while sitting at the right side of the Father in Heaven.

    So, Dr. Scott Hahn is correct in saying that Jesus offered His Body on Calvary and also His Resurrected Body.

    The offering of his Resurrected Body though refers more to the Sacramental Manner of Sacrifice which is the Mass or the Eucharistic Sacrifice rather than the Bloody Crucifixion in Calvary.

    Thus, we enter into a deeper understanding of the Body of Christ which is One and Eternal. Mystically the Church is the Body of Christ and that is why the Church is One and Only. Sacramentally, the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ that is why it is the One and Only Sacrifice for the Faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  9. fair enough...makontak nga si scott hahn hehe

    ...one more thing father, i'm just trying to figure out kasi kung pano ko maipapaliwanag ng husto kung pano naging sacrifice in nature ang misa kahit na hindi ito resacrificing ng katawan ng Panginoon, please tell me whatever errors are existing in this kind of explanation, pls! pls! pls!:

    1. the mass is a making-present-again of what happened in calvary so it is not a new sacrifice

    2. calvary has been offered already for all sins of all mankind BUT it's effects or fruits are not yet applied for sins not yet committed in the present time, so kaya natin ito ino-offer uli ay para ma-i-apply ang epekto nito sa kung anumang kasalanan ang nagawa na, kaya kung hindi mag-aattend ng mass ay hindi mai-a-apply ang epekto nito sa kung anumang kasalanan

    3. the only new sacrifice in the mass is our individual sacrifices like our penances, prayers and obediences. Itong mga personal na sakripisyo nating ito ang inaalay ng ating Panginoon sa heavenly tabernacle sa Ama (at sinasama nya ito sa Kanyang katawan para ito ay maging katanggap tanggap sa Ama), para sa kasalanan natin at ng iba...

    4. ang sacrifice ng calvary ay nagtatanggal lang ng "guilt" ng ating kasalanan at hindi nito saklaw ang temporal punishments, kaya kelangan din natin gumawa ng sarili nating sakripisyo at self denials para sa temporal punishments natin at ng iba

    salamat sa panahon father, napaka interesting po kasi kung ano ang nangyayari sa misa kaya gusto ko po ito maipaliwanag ng husto, please tell me if these explanations are heretical in any way, i'm more than willing to know the correct and exact explanation, sa katesismo po kasi e parang napakaikli ng paliwanag kaya naiisip ko na baka namimisinterpret ko din...

    ReplyDelete
  10. RESPONSE TO FAN OF SCOTT HAHN ON THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 1

    [...one more thing father, i'm just trying to figure out kasi kung pano ko maipapaliwanag ng husto kung pano naging sacrifice in nature ang misa kahit na hindi ito resacrificing ng katawan ng Panginoon, please tell me whatever errors are existing in this kind of explanation, pls! pls! pls!:]

    Ok.

    [1. the mass is a making-present-again of what happened in calvary so it is not a new sacrifice]

    This is correct. The Mass is making present the One Sacrifice in Calvary.

    But, the ONE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST IS TWO TYPE:

    [a] The Bloody Sacrifice on the Cross where He offered His physical Body and Blood. and

    [b] The Unbloody Sacrifice in the Cenacle called THE LAST SUPPER wherein He offered His Eucharistic Body and Blood in the form of consecrated Bread and Wine.

    You have to bear these two types or character of Christ's One and Only Sacrifice. They are one and the same because it is the Same BODY & BLOOD of Christ offered in Last Supper and in Calvary. Yet, they are One Sacrifice.

    The Sacrifice on Calvary is never repeated again by the Catholic Church. Because we are the Church that recommended to Emperor Constantine to stop using Crucifixion for death penalty. We are not repeating the Crucifixion of Christ because Christ is already in heaven and we cannot bring him down to be crucified again.

    What we are repeating is the UNBLOODY FORM OF SACRIFICE OF CHRIST - THE LAST SUPPER. This HE COMMANDED US TO REPEAT: "Do This In Remembrance of Me" [1 Corinthians 11:24].

    THUS, IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMAND OF THE LORD WE REPEAT THE OFFERING OF HIS EUCHARISTIC BODY AND BLOOD. THE UNBLOODY FORM OF HIS ONE AND ETERNAL SACRIFICE.


    [2. calvary has been offered already for all sins of all mankind BUT it's effects or fruits are not yet applied for sins not yet committed in the present time, so kaya natin ito ino-offer uli ay para ma-i-apply ang epekto nito sa kung anumang kasalanan ang nagawa na, kaya kung hindi mag-aattend ng mass ay hindi mai-a-apply ang epekto nito sa kung anumang kasalanan]

    What we are offering again is not exactly the Bloody Sacrifice on Calvary but the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ. But since the Sacrifice of Christ is One and Only, then even though we are celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice we are receiving the graces of Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary.

    It is correct also what you have stated in the second part. Even though Christ's Sacrifice is offered for the sins of the world its effects are not yet applied to our present day sins or newly committed sins. Thus we need the Mass and the Sacrament of Confession.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RESPONSE TO FAN OF SCOTT HAHN ON THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 2

    [3. the only new sacrifice in the mass is our individual sacrifices like our penances, prayers and obediences. Itong mga personal na sakripisyo nating ito ang inaalay ng ating Panginoon sa heavenly tabernacle sa Ama (at sinasama nya ito sa Kanyang katawan para ito ay maging katanggap tanggap sa Ama), para sa kasalanan natin at ng iba...]

    I think it is improper to say: "The only new sacrifice in the Mass" rather we say: The Mass is the Once and For All Sacrifice of Christ. It is Eternal. But what is new are the offerings of the Church and the faithful in every act of worships and adoration in every age. Such as their supplications, prayers, acts of penance, requests for forgiveness and their works of charities being offered together with the Body and Blood of the Lord.

    It is correct that these things are becoming acceptable to the Father because they are offered with the Body and Blood of the Son and since Jesus is the Eternal Priest of the New Covenant it is He Himself bringing these petitions, prayers, and adorations to the Father. And of course the Father will never reject the offerings of the Son.




    [4. ang sacrifice ng calvary ay nagtatanggal lang ng "guilt" ng ating kasalanan at hindi nito saklaw ang temporal punishments, kaya kelangan din natin gumawa ng sarili nating sakripisyo at self denials para sa temporal punishments natin at ng iba]

    Where did you get this?

    The Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and on the Last Supper is Perfect and Efficacious. It removes sins and destroys the power of death. It truly defeated and vanquished Satan. So, it is not only the 'guilt' but the entire sin.

    However, since human persons have free wills we have to accept into our heart, our mind, our soul, our being the Sacrifice of Christ. We need to accept Jesus and His Sacrifice. We need to BELIEVE in Him. We must have Faith in Christ. So that this Sacrifice will come into us. Like the medicine who can truly and perfectly cure a snake poison. Unless we believe it and actually drink the medicine there is no cure.

    Thus, we need to believe in Jesus: "Those who believe and are baptized shall be saved." [Mark 16:16].

    However, FAITH IS WORKING THROUGH LOVE [Galatians 5:6]. Thus, Faith must be manifested in our Good Works to be truly genuine because Faith without Good Works is dead [James 2:20].

    It is true that our sin has its guilt and temporal punishment. Christ has the power to forgive and remove both. And He gave the power to the Church to forgive and remove both. [John 20:21-23/Matthew 16:19/Matthew 18:18]. But the Lord wants us to be truly repentant of ours sins before giving us His full forgiveness and total removal of punishment of sin. Thus, the Church does not only forgives sins, she also guide the penitent to have the necessary things to do in order to serve as temporal punishment for sins.

    ReplyDelete
  12. dear father,

    pls tell that rodel guy (the first to comment) to persevere always in going to confession and receiving our Lord in mass, it's such a great blessing to be a Catholic Christian

    sensya na father, i cant contain it anymore na eh hehe ansarap ng feeling pag nakakasiguro kang pinatawad ka ng Dyos eh hehe

    ReplyDelete